Corrupt judge allows lawsuit against Kyle Rittenhouse to proceed!!!

Dutch Uncle said:
There was an earlier suggestion that Kyle counter-sue those making the wrongful death lawsuit. My guess is something like "He deserved to be shot!!"
Click to expand...

I'm still not quite sure how that damaged Rittenhouse monetarily. In fact, he's made money off of this.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
America is so far gone that defending yourself means you will be prosecuted both criminally and civilly. Even if you win, your legal bills will bankrupt you.

The lesson here is don't be a hero if you are conservative.
Click to expand...

He put himself in that situation. Had he not crossed state lines with an illegally acquired weapon there would have been no need to "defend himself".
 
Concart said:
Let me count the ways. One, he was in possession of a firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess. He has admitted he did not understand the ammunition and what it would do. He fled the scene of a shooting that he was involved in. I could do this all day, but those seem like the most obvious. His negligence contributed to the deaths. He will have to compensate the victims for that negligence. He is screwed.
Click to expand...

he was in fact allowed to possess said rifle, so not negligent. not understanding the ammo and it's effects is not negligence....ignorance, but not negligence. Any rational being would flee the immediate scene for their own safety. He even attempted to flag down the police and they waved him on. that might be negligence on the part of police, but not rittenhouse. by all means, keep doing this. you're doing a great job of outlining how wrong the plaintiff is going to be at trial.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
he was in fact allowed to possess said rifle, so not negligent. not understanding the ammo and it's effects is not negligence....ignorance, but not negligence. Any rational being would flee the immediate scene for their own safety. He even attempted to flag down the police and they waved him on. that might be negligence on the part of police, but not rittenhouse. by all means, keep doing this. you're doing a great job of outlining how wrong the plaintiff is going to be at trial.
Click to expand...

I suspect the civil jury will disagree that not knowing what your weapon is capable of and still bringing it to highly volatile situation is the very definition of negligence.
 
anonymoose said:
They're not good guys if they're involved in an attempted lynching.
Thankfully Biden signed a law making lynching illegal (as if it wasn't already).
Click to expand...

I'm talking about your generic 'good guy with a gun' You seem to think that if they are killed by an active shooter, they deserved it. Rittenhouse WAS an active shooter. He had killed someone, he ran from that killing and still had the weapon with him.
 
Concart said:
I'm talking about your generic 'good guy with a gun' You seem to think that if they are killed by an active shooter, they deserved it. Rittenhouse WAS an active shooter. He had killed someone, he ran from that killing and still had the weapon with him.
Click to expand...

Of course he was an active shooter. I would be too if I had a gun and a lynch mob was chasing me down. Any reasonable person would be. Besides there's no point in arguing a moot outcome.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
"The lawsuit was served on Rittenhouse’s sister, who said that he wasn’t home. Adelman said that was sufficient to qualify as being served."

That's true across this country. If you are known to live in or stay frequently at a residence, and others related to you are served there in your stead -- that's a valid service. They documented the hours spent trying to track down Fatlittlemurderboy to serve him. The fact that he got lawyers to defend against the suit says that he knew he was being sued. Duh.

Next poutrage du jour?
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You stupid lying tranny. The law says they have to serve rittenhouse. They can't serve a relative and say that counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top